Chernobyl: A case study in variance of "scientific conclusions"

Obviously, Fukushima is not Chernobyl. I'm not trying to fan any panic here. There are obvious differences in the scale of the radiation leakage.

However, I have been reading about Chernobyl because it offers several lessons on how officials, experts and citizens should deal with a leaking nuclear facility.

As you can imagine, my family, friends, and colleagues are in a state of constantly exchanging information to try to help each other get a better understanding of the potential threat (or lack thereof) of nuclear radiation leaking from the reactor in Fukushima.

We waver between "It seems OK...right?" and "Nobody knows exactly how dangerous it could be" and keep reading a variety of opinions from mainstream and alternative media.

Obviously, the government, TEPCO and the nuclear energy establishment want to keep any sense of danger as low as possible. The mainstream media seems to go along with this. The government position is that there is no immediate threat, and that seems reasonable, especially in Tokyo where no significant radiation is being detected. But basic critical thinking would require a skepticism on the part of powerful institutions that may (most likely?) have a interest in keeping order, stability, and hopefully a continued trust in nuclear power generation for Japan.

Are we really being told everything we should know to make an informed decision?

On the other hand, there may be "anti-nuclear" organizations or media groups that have an interest in exaggerating the dangers of the Fukushima leak so that they can promote political causes that prefer safer, cleaner energies. Greenpeace comes to mind, but we should also remember that they don't have a direct financial or political gain from any public opinion.

This article in the Guardian challenges inaccurate claims of the anti-nuclear lobby. (link)
But this editor of the same newspaper challenges the reliability of the writer Monbiot. (link)

So, I've been reading about Chernobyl, and one lesson is that it is good to try to get information from as many sources as possible.

For example, one of my colleagues has brought our attention to the difference in "official IAEA/WHO conclusions" on Chernobyl in 2006 and a scientific report that was published in the New York Academy of Sciences in 2009 to rebuke the conclusions of the IAEA report.

You can check it out. For example, one the issue of the effects of Chernobyl, these following "scientific" conclusions seem quite different.

The IAEA conclusion (LINK) seems to really downplay the effects. No more than 30 directly related deaths are mentioned in this Q&A page (though the official report says more):

2. How many people died as an immediate result of the accident?

The initial explosion resulted in the death of two workers. Twenty-eight of the firemen and emergency clean-up workers died in the first three months after the explosion from Acute Radiation Sickness and one of cardiac arrest.

4. What are the major health effects for exposed populations?
There have been at least 1800 documented cases of thyroid cancer children who were between 0 and 14 years of age when the accident occurred., which is far higher than normal. The thyroid gland of young children is particularly susceptible to the uptake of radioactive iodine, which can trigger cancers, treatable both by surgery and medication. Health studies of the registered cleanup workers called in (so-called “liquidators”) have failed to show any direct correlation between their radiation exposure and an increase in other forms of cancer or disease. The psychological affects of Chernobyl were and remain widespread and profound, and have resulted for instance in suicides, drinking problems and apathy.


Contrast the above to the following:

Yablokov's 2009 New York Academy of Sciences publication's (LINK, p. 343) conclusion:

15.4. Total Number of Victims
1. Early official forecasts by IAEA and WHO predicted few additional cases of cancer. In 2005, the Chernobyl Forum declared that the total death toll from the catastrophe would be about 9,000 and the number of sick about 200,000. These numbers cannot distinguish radiation-related deaths and illnesses from the natural mortality and morbidity of a huge population
base.
2. Soon after the catastrophe average life expectancy noticeably decreased and morbidity
and mortality increased in infants and the elderly in the Soviet Union.
3. Detailed statistical comparisons of heavily contaminated territories with less contaminated
ones showed an increase in the mortality rate in contaminated European Russia
and Ukraine of up to 3.75% and 4.0%, respectively, in the first 15 to 17 years after the
catastrophe.
4. According to evaluations based on detailed analyses of official demographic statistics
in the contaminated territories of Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia, the additional
Chernobyl death toll for the first 15 years after the catastrophe amounted to nearly 237,000
people. It is safe to assume that the total Chernobyl death toll for the period from 1987
to 2004 has reached nearly 417,000 in other parts of Europe, Asia, and Africa, and nearly
170,000 in North America, accounting for nearly 824,000 deaths worldwide.
5. The numbers of Chernobyl victims will continue to increase for several generations.

So...scientists come to different conclusions on the deaths as a result of Chernobyl. This is a good case study in how we should interpret official reports and scientific studies that are announced in various types of media.

I'm particularly concerned about the difference in the conclusions about the "liquidators" populations. In the Yablokov meta-analysis, there are so many studies about health problems and higher death rates among liquidators who did clean up of Chernobyl in the that is seems suspicious that the IAEA would not mention any known radiation related effects in that group.

I should note that Monbiot of the Guardian writes the following about the Yablokov book:

A devastating review in the journal Radiation Protection Dosimetry points out that the book achieves this figure (more than 800,000 deaths) by the remarkable method of assuming that all increased deaths from a wide range of diseases – including many which have no known association with radiation – were caused by the Chernobyl accident. There is no basis for this assumption, not least because screening in many countries improved dramatically after the disaster and, since 1986, there have been massivThe study makes no attempt to correlate exposure to radiation with the incidence of disease.e changes in the former eastern bloc.

Its publication seems to have arisen from a confusion about whether Annals was a book publisher or a scientific journal. The academy has given me this statement: "In no sense did Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences or the New York Academy of Sciences commission this work; nor by its publication do we intend to independently validate the claims made in the translation or in the original publications cited in the work. The translated volume has not been peer reviewed by the New York Academy of Sciences, or by anyone else."

It is hard to know what to think. Each claim needs careful examination. The red part...I think is a mistake on the part of Monbiot. I'm not an expert, but the Yablokov book does seem to correlate highly exposed areas and populations and incidence of disease in relation to other areas/populations.

The green part is a weakness of the Yablokov report, of course, and is a mystery to me (if it is true). Is the NY Academy of Sciences just a book publisher? If so, I would hope other scientists might comment on the validity of the Yablokov report compared to the United Nations report, which I assume is similar to the IAEA report (?).

Last, I just want to throw in the words of Alexey Yablokov, the writer of the 2009 report above:

"When you hear 'no immediate danger' [from nuclear radiation] then you should run away as far and as fast as you can."

Hmm...I think that is an exaggeration that may only apply to the USSR where government secrecy was part of the nature of the communist state...but still is food for thought, and a reminder to keep looking at a variety of sources and not just official government, IAEA, and mainstream media sources.

So...who is objective and accurate? Who is biased? I'm not able to draw a firm conclusion at this point, but hope to keep up with this debate because it will affect our understanding of the various reports and announcements of the effects of Fukushima. Governments will tend to stay within the realm of declaring action only for "scientifically proven threats"...so unless some danger has been clearly measured or modeled, it will not be announced. However, as in the case of Chernobyl, it may be true that some scientists believe there is a need for alarm when others don't. To some extent, I may want to err on the safe side by believing the conclusions reached on "mostly" accurate projections even if they are not fully established.

In any case, I will keep my eyes and ears open, and hope for the best, but anticipate the worst so that I can ensure the safety of my family.

And drink beer to keep away any stray radiation effects. This is scientific (link)!